Printable View
[QUOTE]Wilt's regular season scoring doesn't show up when the stakes were highest, but his [B]often lacking defense[/B] carries over.[/QUOTE]
Just scrolling by that caught my eye and removed all reason for me to give it a serious read. Credibility killer. Whatever anyone can say about Wilt....often lacking defense isnt it.
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]Just scrolling by that caught my eye and removed all reason for me to give it a serious read. Credibility killer. Whatever anyone can say about Wilt....often lacking defense isnt it.[/QUOTE]
Wilt Chamberlain played in exactly 1,045 NBA games, with a minute average of 45.8(!!) minutes per game. Yet, he never fouled out. Never. How?
Wilt was continually obsessed with a bizarre streak—for whatever reason, he wanted to make it through his entire basketball career without fouling out, so he’d stop challenging shots with four or five fouls even if he was hurting his team in the process.
Here’s what John Havlicek wrote in Hondo: “Wilt’s greatest idiosyncrasy was not fouling out. He had never fouled out of a high school, college or professional game and that was the one record he was determined to protect. When he got that fourth foul, his game would change. I don’t know how many potential victories he may have cheated his team out of by not really playing after he got into foul trouble.''
Not to mention that Wilt had multiple seasons of anchoring the worst defense in the league, in an era where jumpshots weren't as effective nor as much used as they are today.
GOAT winner, even players like Wilt were making fun of Russell's insane drive to win. Thats why one has 11 rings and another one two, because "woman and cars are more important" than winning.
[QUOTE=Kawhi]Well, that was fun. There you have it, Wilt ''the alpha'' Chamberlain.[/QUOTE]
'60 EDF's:
Chamberlain dominates Russell in the first two games, but badly injures his hand in a melee at the end of the game. In fact, the belief is that it might be broken. He plays game three with a massively swollen wrist, and for the ONLY time in his 143 career match-ups with Russell, is he decisively outplayed. Russell outscores Wilt, 26-12, and outrebounds Chamberlain 39-15. Oh, and Russell played 40 minutes compared to Wilt's 35. Want to take a guess at what the final score would be? 120-90. The Warriors have ZERO chance without a dominating Wilt. Chamberlain is still not close to 100% in game four, and Russell plays him to a draw in yet another Celtic win. Chamberlain finally is 100% in game five, and just CRUSHES Russell with the an unfathomable 50-35 game. The Celtics swarm Chamberlain in game six, and the heavily favored Celts finally put away a far inferior Warrior team, in a two point win. Again, Wilt just annihilated Russell overall, outscoring him by a huge margin; outrebounding him, and badly outshooting him. Even the most ardent Russell supporters can only give Russ two games out of those six. Personally, 4-1-1 Wilt.
'61: Chamberlain averages a 37-23 in that three game sweeping loss. How about his [last place roster that he inherited in his rookie season] teammates? They collectively shoot .332. Wilt's two "HOF" teammates, Arizin and Gola shoot ... get this... .328 and .206 respectively. And yes, two of those losses were by slim margins. With ANY help from his putrid teammates, they likely would have repeated what they did to that same team in the '60 and '62 playoffs (when Chamberlain also averaged 39 and 37 ppg in those two series.)
'62: Game 1. Russell "neutralized" Wilt in the first half. With a 15 point lead. Chamberlain BURIED Russell in that second half. You want the final numbers? Wilt oustcored Russell, 33-16; outrebounded Russell, 31-30; and outshot Russell from the floor...by a 13-25 to 7-22 margin! How about Wilt's teammates? they collectively shot 20-85 (Russell's shot 40-98 BTW.)
BTW, I find it LAUGHABLE that Russell gets a credit for a "win" when he would hold Chamberlain down for a half, or even a quarter. Wilt never had that luxury with Russell. You want more evidence? In game two, Wilt thrashed Russell by outscoring him, 42-9, and outrebounding him, 37-20...all in guess what...a seven point win.
Incidently, for those that give Russell a "win" for "holding" Chamberlain down for a half...how about this game?
[url]http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/196202090BOS.html[/url]
You will see that Boston had a 19 point lead going into the 4th quarter (and newpaper accounts had it at 20 early in the period)...and yet...a huge comeback, in a game in which Chamberlain just destroyed Russell.
For the series, Chamberlain outplayed Russell, 4-2-1. BTW, while Russell held Wilt down in that game seven, newspaper reports claimed that Wilt's DEFENSE was the difference. Incidently, Chamberlain scored Philly's last five points, including a three-point play to tie the score. And had there not been a questionable goal-tend called against Wilt with a little over a minute to play, who knows how that game (and series) would have turned out.
And one more time...Boston was FAVORED in EVERY game of that seven game series. Tom Meschery said it best. Player-for-player Boston was better. But Wilt nearly won the series.
Oh, and I gotta love it when this CLOWN mentions that Sam Jones outscored Wilt in SOME of their games (Wilt outscored Jones in their '60, '62, '64, '65, '66, and '67 playoff series H2H's.) Why was it WILT's responsibility to outscore Jones.
Oh, and another point. Even Russell acknowledged that Sam Jones saved Boston in the post-season SIX times. Again, you can't blame Wilt for Jones going off.
'64. This is truly laughable. Chamberlain OVERWHELMED Russell in that Finals. Unfortunately for Wilt, Russell held a 7-2 edge in HOF teammates. And to compound that...Chamberlain's two HOF teammates shot .326 and .258 respectively. The bottom line...Wilt took a roster that had gone 31-49 the year before, up against a HOF-laden Celtic team...and they won one game, and almost won the last two.
'65. All anyone needs to know...Wilt SINGLE-HANDEDLY carried a 40-40 team to a game seven, one point loss, against a 62-18 Celtic team at the peak of their dynasty. And it was perhaps the most one-sided beatdown between two GOATS in the history of the sport. Only the '67 EDF's would challenge it....when Wilt would again MASSACRE a helpless Russell.
'66. I love it. This clown blames Wilt in game four for the loss, because he only scored 15 points. Guess what...he loves to cite newspaper recaps, most of which were hilarious...but how about that game?
[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9328149&postcount=42[/url]
[QUOTE]The recaps say that Wilt outplayed Russell in the final 3 games. He definitely picked it up after the first two games. As you said, "Impact goes beyond stats." Then the very next sentence you cite his stats. [B]The Game 4 recap states that he nearly beat Boston "by himself".[/B] It is obvious the Celtics were sagging back defensively, keeping him from the ball. Even watching highlights of the series, they would full court press the point guard with KC Jones to make them use up clock in bringing the ball up. They would also shade Wilt before the ball even got in, daring the outside shooters to beat them. Anything to keep the ball out of Wilt's hands as often as possible.[/QUOTE]
And that was Chamberlain's WORST game of that series.
'67: Chamberlain just CARPET-BOMBED Russell, and in EVERY facet of the game. And had he needed to put 40+ point games, he surely could have. He did what was needed, and it was a massive blowout of the eight-time defending, and 60-21 Celtics.
'68. Again LAUGHABLE. I don't need to repost Wilt's domination of Russell here. All we need to know about that series came from PHILA's research.
[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9328011&postcount=14[/url]
[url]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9328006&postcount=13[/url]
Wilt's Sixers were so decimated by injuries, including multiple injuries to Chamberlain himself, that they weren't even favored in their first round series against the Knicks. And it got worse in the EDF's against Boston. That that Sixer team was able to lose a game seven by a measley four points was a miracle. A healthy Sixer squad would have easily repeated their 4-1 annihiltion of Boston a year earlier. And can you imagine the blowout that series would have been, had it been Russell and his Celtics battling those injuries, and going against a healthy Sixer team?
'69. LA's COACH lost that series.I could, and have, put up paragraphs on that series, but here is all anyone needs to read...
[url]https://books.google.com/books?id=9BaqPfGcI84C&pg=PA355&lpg=PA355&dq=butch+van+breda+kolff+had+chamberlain+playing+the+high+post&source=bl&ots=rQxpX4Ys7l&sig=oosFtJ3aB-NUrdTlS-5xi8-eHyI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi70fWD0svKAhVDuYMKHSvWDRgQ6AEIQTAJ#v=onepage&q=butch%20van%20breda%20kolff%20had%20chamberlain%20playing%20the%20high%20post&f=false[/url]
Van Breda Kolff:
"So we were able to throw the ball down low to Wilt and he'd score, but it was an awful offense to watch."
Perhaps the most idiotic comment to ever come out of a coach's mouth.
That takes care of the Russell-Wilt battles.
Again, John Wooden said it best...had Wilt and Russell swapped rosters, and coaches, and it would have been Wilt holding all those rings.
Thanks for playing though...
[QUOTE]Wilt Chamberlain played in exactly 1,045 NBA games, with a minute average of 45.8(!!) minutes per game. Yet, he never fouled out. Never. How?
Wilt was continually obsessed with a bizarre streak—for whatever reason, he wanted to make it through his entire basketball career without fouling out, so he’d stop challenging shots with four or five fouls even if he was hurting his team in the process.
Here’s what John Havlicek wrote in Hondo: “Wilt’s greatest idiosyncrasy was not fouling out. He had never fouled out of a high school, college or professional game and that was the one record he was determined to protect. When he got that fourth foul, his game would change. I don’t know how many potential victories he may have cheated his team out of by not really playing after he got into foul trouble.''
Not to mention that Wilt had multiple seasons of anchoring the worst defense in the league, in an era where jumpshots weren't as effective nor as much used as they are today.[/QUOTE]
People go entire careers and foul out once or twice. Many not at all they just arent reported. Fouling out is rarer than people seem to think. Even for good defenders. Jimmy butler just fouled out for the first time in his career today. He may go another 5-6 years before it happens again. Guys go years without fouling out all the time. People just hang onto the fact that wilt didnt because they dont look into anyone else. Last time the issue of Bron rarely fouling out came up I saw that Deng fouled out like 3 times in his career and one was off intentional fouls. Iggy has fouled out twice in the last 10 years after 6 times early in his career. Moses Malone had something like a 12 year run of not fouling out...and he was foul prone at times. Steve Nash fouled out once after the 90s and he played 53 minutes to do it. Nique played like 17 years and fouled out once. Meaning he played more games without fouling out than Wilt did.
As I said...whatever anyone thinks of Wilt....his "often lacking defense" is just not credible. Bill Russell himself was on record saying Wilt played his style of game better than he did himself when he was a Laker. Now....I dont know if id say the same. But Bill Russell was not a modest man in regards to his defense and rebounding. Hes not gonna give that claim out about a poor defender. There is too much evidence of virtually everyone Wilt played underperforming to make such a claim.
There are hall of famers he literally held scoreless to prove a point.
He wasnt asked to move around the way Russell was to defend entire teams...he defended the basket. He was damn near playing zone at times. But he was consistent doing it. Of the known game logs from his final season his average...at 36...would beat everyone we have numbers for except Mark Eaton. That either Wilt or Russell is the real all time blocks leader is virtually unquestioned.
This is someone who sent away literally dozens of shots at times, is among the greatest defensive rebounders ever, and spent the back third of his career totally sacrificing his offensive game to shut down the lane and throw outlet passes to win. You just cant claim he was some lacking defensive player in general and have me take you serious.
I dont care if you love Wilt or hate him. Ive been on both sides of the argument for many years here....I have his books...I have Kareems where he pretty much called Wilt out in this room. Ive seen all there is to see on him and read all there likely is to read. All the quotes....from Pete newell when he was in college, to Walt Frazier talking about learning to time his floaters by Wilts pre jump "squat" which Russel didnt have, and Kareem talking about getting his shots blocked by Wilt before he also got his leaps timed and started to piss him off rolling them over his fingers at 12 feet up...
Seen it all...good and bad. None of it justifies much talk about him being a poor or lacking defender. Feels like old articles calling him slow(which is what was said in an amusing but awful book by Elliot Kalb). Its too inaccurate for me to keep caring what someone saying that thinks. Feel free to not care if I take you serious. Just thought id chime in. It caught my eye is all.
You strike me as someone who has a little file or bookmark with quotes and numbers ive already seen saved for such an occasion. I wont tell you to save your time...because a copy paste isnt really much time...I will tell you im not likely to respond to it. If you want to call that fear....go right ahead. I just dont feel like a whole....thing...right now. I'll read it if it feels like something you took the time to write out on the spot. If it feels like a copy/paste job ill just skim through. But ive been arguing about Wilt from one end or the other since my second topic ever here which was made during a prudential halftime report(yes...nba on nbc) so I dont have much enthusiasm for them now. Not long drawn out ones like it looks like you and Laz are gearing up for.
[QUOTE=Harison]GOAT winner, even players like Wilt were making fun of Russell's insane drive to win. Thats why one has 11 rings and another one two, because "woman and cars are more important" than winning.[/QUOTE]
Definitely .
Russell did want to win , Chamberlain did want to get fun with cars,women and beach .
What goes around , comes around .
[QUOTE=feyki]Definitely .
Russell did want to win , Chamberlain did want to get fun with cars,women and beach .
What goes around , comes around .[/QUOTE]
Interesting that Chamberlain carried far worse rosters to within an eyelash of beating Russell's HOF-laden teams on several occasions. Or that when Chamberlain FINALLY had a supporting cast the equal of Russell's, and that was healthy, he and his team just annihilated Russell and his.
Again...John Wooden...
had Wilt and Russell swapped rosters, and coaches, and it would have been Wilt holding all those rings.
That's all people in here talk about when it comes to 50s 60s basketball. People wanna act like players like Lenny Wilkins, Dolph Schayes, Cliff Hagan, Richie Guerin, Bob Pettit, Walt Hazzard, Zelmo Beaty, Nate Thurmond, Wayne Embry, Willis Reed, Hal Greer, and Paul Arizin didn't exist. All people bring up is Bill, Robertson, Baylor, West, and Wilt.
People only mentioning a few players of that era, and not mentioning they're competition only reinforces idiots to say; "that was a weak era", when it's clearly not the case.
[QUOTE=feyki]Definitely .
Russell did want to win , Chamberlain did want to get fun with cars,women and beach .
What goes around , comes around .[/QUOTE]
Wilt certainly enjoyed his life far more...despite being a "loser."
For many years following his retirement, Russell was a bitter (and broke) man. He despised the city of Boston, and didn't even go to his first retirement ceremony.
He also wouldn't sign autographs out of principle, yet did so for profit.
And there were those that claimed that he was a racist, as well.
On the flip side, Chamberlain was a wealthy man his entire (relatively short-lived) life. And he contributed heavily to various charities, and left his alma mater, KU, with something like $650,000.
And speaking of his time at KU....he termed the loss to North Carolina in the NCAA Finals in his soph season as the worst of his entire career.
BTW, when he finally returned to Kansas for a jersey retirement ceremony, he was afraid that his return would not be welcomed...
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbxrzeUIzpI[/url]
Oh, and he was supposed to be there briefly afterwards, and leave quickly, but instead, he stayed around and signed autographs, until everyone that wanted one, received one...for something like two hours.
Oh, and BTW, he was dying at the time...
And here is another side of Wilt that many here may not know about, either...
[url]http://bleacherreport.com/articles/445705-i-wanna-be-like-wilt-not-like-mike[/url]
[QUOTE]One of Wilt's teammates was a fellow by the name of Paul Arizin.
Arizin was a great player in his time (career 1951-62) and is a Hall of Famer, in addition to being a top 50 player (as selected in 1996). He played 12 seasons, averaged 17 ppg as a rookie and more than 20 ppg in each of his other 11 seasons.
In 1993, Arizin's granddaughter Stephanie, unbeknownst to her family, wrote a letter to Wilt asking for an autograph. Stephanie was then 11 years old.
She had written to Wilt in care of the Lakers, and the letter was forwarded to the office of Wilt's attorney and best friend, Sy Goldberg. But because Goldberg's office had moved and Wilt was often inattentive to his mail, the letter was not even opened for THREE years.
When Wilt finally got around to reading it, he immediately called the then-14-year-old Stephanie in suburban Philadelphia, and Wilt and the young girl quickly established an unusual rapport.
Wilt later called Stephanie's father (the son of his former teammate Paul) at work to tell him how much he had enjoyed talking to Stephanie and apologized that it had taken him so long to respond. "She must have thought I was such a jerk, not answering a little girl's request," Wilt said... "I had to call her up and let her know what happened."
It was then that Michael Arizin (Stephanie's father and Paul's son) informed Wilt that, only a week before, Stephanie had been diagnosed with a brain tumor and had been given 12 to 18 months to live. She had never mentioned the illness in her conversations with Wilt.
Wilt promised to stay in touch with Stephanie on a regular basis. True to his word, Wilt spoke to Stephanie Arizin almost every Friday, often for an hour, during the last 15 months of her life. On July 30, 1997, Stephanie passed away at age 16.
Right after her death, Wilt, who was to live little more than two more years himself, sent this telegram:
To the Arizin family:
My sincerest condolences. I am here for you, all of you, if ever I am needed.
I may have tears in my eyes... I lost a friend who was full of strength and loved life passionately... From Stehpanie I realize that you're never too old to learn and never too young to teach. Her body may now be gone, but in my memory she can always be reached. I will forever rejoice in my memory of what she brought to my life in our very short time of friendship.
Love and peace,
"Dippy"
Wilt Chamberlain
A great story. No one really knew about this until Paul Arizin spoke at Wilt's funeral and told everyone assembled there what had happened with Stephanie.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]Wilt certainly enjoyed his life far more...despite being a "loser."
For many years following his retirement, Russell was a bitter (and broke) man. He despised the city of Boston, and didn't even go to his first retirement ceremony.
He also wouldn't sign autographs out of principle, yet did so for profit.
And there were those that claimed that he was a racist, as well.
On the flip side, Chamberlain was a wealthy man his entire (relatively short-lived) life. And he contributed heavily to various charities, and left his alma mater, KU, with something like $650,000.
And speaking of his time at KU....he termed the loss to North Carolina in the NCAA Finals in his soph season as the worst of his entire career.
BTW, when he finally returned to Kansas for a jersey retirement ceremony, he was afraid that his return would not be welcomed...
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbxrzeUIzpI[/url]
Oh, and he was supposed to be there briefly afterwards, and leave quickly, but instead, he stayed around and signed autographs, until everyone that wanted one, received one...for something like two hours.
Oh, and BTW, he was dying at the time...
And here is another side of Wilt that many here may not know about, either...
[url]http://bleacherreport.com/articles/445705-i-wanna-be-like-wilt-not-like-mike[/url][/QUOTE]
I didn't criticize Wilt's personal life . I respect Wilt's life style . I enjoyed with his interview's , specially with Russell . He was a great guy .
But my post wasn't about that . My post was about Wilt's perceptions about BasketBall . And of course i choose Bill's than Chamberlain's .
[QUOTE=feyki]I didn't criticize Wilt's personal life . I respect Wilt's life style . I enjoyed with his interview's , specially with Russell . He was a great guy .
But my post wasn't about that . My post was about Wilt's perceptions about BasketBall . And of course i choose Bill's than Chamberlain's .[/QUOTE]
For someone who has been portrayed (maybe not by you) as a loser, Chamberlain sure wasn't very good at it.
One, and perhaps even two losing seasons. And in one of them, he played 47.6 mpg, and led the NBA in 15 statistical categories, including scoring (by a mile), rebounding, and FG%. In fact, he led the league, and again, by a mile, in Win Shares, at 20.9...on a team that went 31-49. He also faced Russell and his eight other HOFers that year, nine times (going 1-8.) However, seven of those nine games were close (that includes a double digit OT loss.) Furthermore, he averaged 38 ppg against Russell in those nine H2H's, and downright crushed him in several.
How bad was that roster? They had 16 different players, several of whom only played briefly in the NBA. Their second best player was "all-star" Tom Meschery, who played in 64 games.
Interesting, too, that the very next year the Warriors brought in Alex Hannum as their new head coach. He quickly found this out...
[url]http://www.si.com/vault/1964/03/02/608684/meet-the-new-wilt-chamberlain[/url]
[QUOTE]San Francisco had a coach, but what Hannum got was no bargain. The team had the morale of a bunch of recruits immediately after their first G.I. haircuts. Says Hannum, "I realized how completely inadequate the team had become. [B]They had learned to depend on Wilt so completely they were even [COLOR="DarkRed"]incapable of beating a squad of rookies[/COLOR][/B]. I had to convince them that they, too, had responsibilities."[/QUOTE]
Furthermore...
[QUOTE][B]So are the Warriors, a team that lists on its roster some of the [COLOR="DarkRed"]slowest players and worst shooters ever[/COLOR] to play in the NBA[/B]. With just 14 games remaining in the regular season, San Francisco
Continuing...
So, we covered Chamberlain's two losing seasons. And in one of them, he took a bottom-feeding roster to within an eyelash of beating the greatest dynasty in the history of the NBA.
How about the rest of his career?
Let's start with his rookie season. To understand that, you have to realize that Chamberlain was drafted while in HIGH SCHOOL (a territorial pick.) And just his luck...the team that drafted him was a LAST PLACE team.
He immediately improved them from a 32-40 team, to a 49-26 team. And he single-handedly carried that roster past the Nats in the first round (which included a 53-22 series clinching performance), and then to a game six, two point loss, at the hands of Russell's HOF-laden and 59-16 Celtics. And had Chamberlain not badly injured his hand at the end of game two, (and was worthless in game three, and not at 100% in game four), who knows how that series would have played out.
In his second season, he took his team to a 46-33 record, but they were swept by the Nats in the first round. Must have been Wilt's fault, right? Well, if putting up a 37-23 series can be blamed on him...yes. His teammates collectively shot... .332. Oh, and his two "HOF" teammates, Paul Arizin, and Tom Gola...shot .328 and .206 respectively.
In his historic 61-62 season, Chamberlain single-handedly carried that same last place roster that he had inherited his rookie season, but now older and even worse, to a 49-31 record. In the first round, Chamberlain again hung a 37-23 series on the Nats, including the clinching win performance of 56 points and 35 rebounds. And he then took them all the way to a game seven, two point loss, against Russell's stacked 60-20 Celtics. In a series in which Chamberlain averaged a 34-27.
Continued...
Continuing...
We have already covered Chamberlain's '62-63, '63-64, and '64-65 seasons. Needless to say, he was playing with rosters that the cast of Gilligan's Island could have outplayed.
However, from his '65-66 season onto the his last year in the NBA ('72-73), he played with talented rosters, and the results were predictable. Not only winning teams, but four teams with the best record in the league, and four with 60+ wins, including two title teams that went 68-13 and 69-13. True, he "only' won those two titles, but his teams were still outgunned in almost every post-season series. For instance, the Celtics had more HOFers on their roster in '66, '67, '68, and '69. And the Knicks would have more HOFers on their roster in '68, '70, '72, and '73. Furthermore, in Chamberlain's '71 season, he faced Kareem's 66-16 Bucks in the WCF's, and without BOTH West and Baylor.
And even in '68, when he and his supporting cast were superior to Boston, ...well, the team that romped to the best record in the league that year, was nowhere near the crippled lot that battled the Celtics to a game seven, four point loss, in the EDF's.
Again, in Chamberlain's 14 year career...13 post-seasons, 10 Conference Finals, Six Finals, and two title teams. Five of his other teams lost in game sevens to the eventual champion, and four of those were by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. Four teams with the best record in the league, and four teams that won 60+ games.
THAT was Wilt "the loser."
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]Continuing...
We have already covered Chamberlain's '62-63, '63-64, and '64-65 seasons. Needless to say, he was playing with rosters that the cast of Gilligan's Island could have outplayed.
However, from his '65-66 season onto the his last year in the NBA ('72-73), he played with talented rosters, and the results were predictable. Not only winning teams, but four teams with the best record in the league, and four with 60+ wins, including two title teams that went 68-13 and 69-13. True, he "only' won those two titles, but his teams were still outgunned in almost every post-season series. For instance, the Celtics had more HOFers on their roster in '66, '67, '68, and '69. And the Knicks would have more HOFers on their roster in '68, '70, '72, and '73. Furthermore, in Chamberlain's '71 season, he faced Kareem's 66-16 Bucks in the WCF's, and without BOTH West and Baylor.
And even in '68, when he and his supporting cast were superior to Boston, ...well, the team that romped to the best record in the league that year, was nowhere near the crippled lot that battled the Celtics to a game seven, four point loss, in the EDF's.
Again, in Chamberlain's 14 year career...13 post-seasons, 10 Conference Finals, Six Finals, and two title teams. Five of his other teams lost in game sevens to the eventual champion, and four of those were by margins of 2, 1, 4, and 2 points. Four teams with the best record in the league, and four teams that won 60+ games.
THAT was Wilt "the loser."[/QUOTE]
Guy Rodgers avg 13 and 10 in the 63-64 season, yet you still consider him a terrible NBa player:oldlol: